The Pine Valley Deeds

[Tom MacWood]

Bryan
Why the hesitation to address the numerous hunting stories?

You've also ignored the numerous problems with the train story:

1. Crump was not playing golf in 1910.
2. Tilly was playing little or no golf in 1910 because of his involvement at Shawnee.
3. Crump considered two other sites prior to settling on the current site in 1912.
4. Crump's 1912 letter stating he just found the site.
5. The majority claim the site was found hunting.  

Please address these issues....that is if you have any interest in getting at the truth. If you are just interested in an exercise of mental masturbation, please let us know. I've asked you these questions before...should we read your unwillingness to address as an acknowledgement in mental masturbation?

[DMoriarty]

David,

Re your last post about the lack of hills beyond the 3rd tee/2nd green area, could you point that out to Patrick too.  He seems stuck on the physically impossible that the photo caption is literally correct and the photo was taken from between the elbow and the tee end of the fairway.  Perhaps he will believe you that it can't be there; apparently he doesn't believe anyone else, or reality.

I am not telling anyone what to believe, Bryan.  Patrick knows the site first hand.  I don't.  As far as where specifically he thinks the photo was taken from, I haven't paid much attention, but I do know that Patrick seems to understand that we can't just throw out the captions.  If we do, we might as well start from scratch.  

My issue has been rather simple from the beginning and it is directed to everyone who thinks that photo was taken from the ridge, including Patrick.  Whether Patrick, you, Jim, or whoever says it, I don't see how it would have been physically possible to see a tree covered hillside over the 3rd tee from the ridge which would become the sixth hole.  As I understand it, you agree with me that the geometry doesn't work, which is why you have instead shifted your angle well to the right of the what is depicted in the caption.   I am hoping someone will explain to me how this was physically possible, but so far no one has even come close.  

To be clear,  I am not claiming that the 3rd tee was dead center in the photo; only that the caption says it was in the photo, and I don't see how it could have been, and I think you agree with me.   Whether far left or middle left or middle is irrelevant to me, as the hills in the background are visible across the width of the photo.

I see you've reverted to the quad topos and Google Earth.  The 1/9 arc second NED data a little hard to use, or do you still have some questions about it.

I have the same issue I have with the 1/9 NED as I did before.   As I said, I produced that previous topo because you were asking me for my data source etc, and I expressed reservations even then.  

Also, my post above addresses another mistaken claim made by Brauer where he specifically referenced quad topos. Specifically, he claim that ". . . the hills you see in the distance are also clearly marked on those USGS quad maps in the background and would be visible but of course, David stops his cross sections before those hills in an effort to make his point, for whatever reason."  In other words, he claims the topos refute my position, and that I am fudging my presentation to mask the fact that there are hills depicted on the topo just beyond where I end my cross-section.  I wanted to provide him every opportunity prove his point, but he cannot and of course he will just leave his false claim out there instead of admitting he was wrong again.  

But you know he was wrong Bryan.   So tell him. Tell him that there are no hills just beyond my x-section that refute my argument.   And if you won't, why not?  
_________________________________________________

As for your latest experiments with the 1/9 NED, all very interesting, but the more you get into this stuff, the more it becomes clear that this state of the art information is multitudes better than the blind trust you guys want to put in the absolute elevations on the 1913 map.  We can work to a full understanding of the data we are using today, including its limitations, whereas we have such ability with the old date.  We do not even have any idea of the benchmark!  If the benchmark data was wrong, then the absolute elevations on the entire map were wrong.  And every indication is that the benchmark data was wrong.    And let's not forget that the 1913 topo has this entire area one 10 feet higher.   Do you think they lowered it?  

It is interesting though, but I don't understand what you are trying to prove.  I've already said that I didn't entirely trust the data where it appeared to be missing or where the resolution was blurry or out of focus, and I speculated that in these areas the data collection was incomplete, leading to excessive smoothing.   Your experiment seems to support his position, since you chose to conduct your experiment in an area of the course and an rectangle where some of the data appears to be missing and the rest appears to be blurry.  

But why would you choose such an area?    Why not conduct your experiment on the range, for example, where all the features seem to be of high resolution.  (If you do, I'd suggest a finer scale, as 5 ft. will not be small enough to show the level of detail.)  Or at points on the course where the image is high resolution?  Yes the data appears to be spotty, but there seem to be enough points with resolution to check the absolute elevations at the corresponding points on the 1913 map.  

And NO, Bryan, the 1/9 NED data is not the only data source I want to use as a benchmark against the 1913 topo. I'm fine with using the most recent quad topo, Google Earth, the 1/3 NED, the data gathered in the 1980's or the data gather for any of the other USGS topos preceding the most recent.  All indicate that the absolute values on the 1913 map run substantially higher across the board.  
________________________________

I think we both know that the 1913 topo very likely has a benchmark problem.   If state of the art technology capable of accuracy to within a meter doesn't convince you, then wait a while and they will probably improve on this as well, either by cleaner, more complete data collection or by even more accurate sensors.  Then you will not be able to focus on low resolution sections with apparent missing data, and ignore high resolution sections with apparent better data.  

[DMoriarty]

This stuff actually really interest me...maybe I should be over on the "you know you're a dork if..." thread but...The green does pitch clost to 4 feet from front to back, bt it's all the other elevations that exist in reality but not on that heat sensitive map that has me confused. Why doesn't it show the drop-off around three sides of the green? Why does it make it look like a 75 yard shot into the green is 10-15 feet downhill? It's about flat...

It is interesting to me as well.   My guess is the data collection is less than perfect for the sample area Bryan tested.  The USGS takes the data and creates a rasterized model/image of the landscape using elevation data, and where the data is complete the details are extraordinary.  But Bryan took this sample from a section of the course where data appears to be missing and/or blurry, and in fairness to Bryan a substantial portion of the course seems to have missing or blurry data.  This is extremely new technology and an extremely new data collection method, and they say it will be be revisited and updated regularly, so hopefully these limitations for this location will be resolved soon.  

To give you an idea of what I mean by "resolution," blur, and the possible problems with the data collection at PV, below is the rendering of PV and the aerial of the same land.  Keep in mind that isn't from a photograph, but a creation based on the elevation readings from the LIDAR data collection where the elevation at "bare earth" level is determined every 3 meters.  So, ideally, there are digital points on a three dimensional grid, with the points on the grid only about three meters apart, and from this they come up with what seems to me to be like a digital relief map akin to the plasticine models they used to make at courses like NGLA.  

And when the data set is complete, the resolution is high.  Meaning there is lots of data in a small area.  As you can see in the image below, in the areas to the south the resolution is good.  You can see indentations of roads, and even slight elevation changes on the driving range where bunkers and target greens exist.  And the resolution seems good for portions of the course, including much of the 6th, 7th, 12, and 13th fairways.  But you can also see that substantial portions of the rest of the land is blurry or green.  Where it is green I suspect they didn't have enough good data in the 1/9 NED to even extrapolate, and where it is blurry I suspect they are extrapolating based on a less than perfect data set.





Compare that to a rendering of Merion using the same technology, where the data collection appears to be more complete.





So you can see that areas of the PV data seems to be missing or incomplete, especially on west facing slopes.

That said, where high resolution data exists at Pine Valley the elevation readings ought to be very accurate.  Within +/- 1 meter, according to there USGS.  
______________________________________

To give you an idea of how new this resource is and how quickly it is changing, the available images have changed even over the past few days.   

[DMoriarty]

Here is a wide view of Huntingdon Valley Country Club.



And Garden City for Patrick.   One can see some imperfections or "noise" with this data, but also a neat visual of how the course was built over a road grid, and how those roads were utilized in the layout.

[Bryan Izatt]

I'm working on it, but I've been busy with maps. 

When are you going to post the Giles and Wind and Brown contributions?  And, the first mention of the hunting story?

Bryan
Why the hesitation to address the numerous hunting stories?

You've also ignored the numerous problems with the train story:

1. Crump was not playing golf in 1910.
2. Tilly was playing little or no golf in 1910 because of his involvement at Shawnee.
3. Crump considered two other sites prior to settling on the current site in 1912.
4. Crump's 1912 letter stating he just found the site.
5. The majority claim the site was found hunting.  

Please address these issues....that is if you have any interest in getting at the truth. If you are just interested in an exercise of mental masturbation, please let us know. I've asked you these questions before...should we read your unwillingness to address as an acknowledgement in mental masturbation?

[Bryan Izatt]

Oh, and one more thing I should have shown re the 1st hole contour lines, is the overlay of the 1913 topo.  It may not be exactly located, but what's interesting is that Crump (or whomever) located the 1st green on the end of a nose with a 5 foot drop around three sides.  Sort of like the current reality.  It gives me some faith in the 1913 topo.  The orange current topo contours doesn't really fit at all.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Without trying to inflame anyone, I would like to point out that while 2011 technology from aerial mapping is "down to" a meter in vertical accuracy, survey rods were measured out in increments of 0.01 feet, even back in 1913 ( I have several maps from that era with catch basin rims down to the hundreth of a foot)  And I have done the math of what happens when the survey is slightly out of level and it is surprisingly low over the few hundred feet they would have been trying to read elevations at. 

Lastly, the human mind is still a greater computer, or at least more flexible.  If surveying the first green as Bryan showed above, rather than relying on their grid and "data points", whatever the spacing, as a computer does in smoothing out all the contour lines in between known elevations, the survey crew, when encountering a particularly steep bank like the one at the first green would most likely shoot several elveations at the top of the ridge and bottom to determine that area in more detail.

My 99% comment is based on 30 years experience using this stuff and was meant to convey my experience in how often surveyors are wrong, which is not very much.  So little in fact, that it sure doesn't make sense to presume they are, although I understand the value in questioning everything, as David and Bryan do.

So, while its getting better all the time, and this is all very interesting - note to self, just found another time wasting website, thanks to David and Bryan! - developers still order surveyed topo for its accuracy.  There is a benchmark change from the 1913 era, so it would be "off" globally, but still accurate to their benchmark.  Also, it would be in relation to any hills beyond, had the surveyor been paid to go out that far.

David,

I was sure I saw a section line ending in a low point, but on going back I don't see it now, so I was wrong on that one, or I saw it somewhere else or its been removed.

And I agree with you that Patrick sensed the importance of not ignoring the caption.  I presumed and accept the caption was generally correct as well, and simply disagree with him that it has to be that literal.  If a picture is a 1000 words, as they say, and all the near features line up quite well with the photo being taken from the front of six green.  The background hills are higher if the section line is drawn from there and more likely visible than from a photo angle from the front of 6 tee or even the dogleg.

It all lines up and makes for the simplest answer as to where the photo was taken, IMHO.  That's my story, I'm sticking to it, and I see no value in repeating it again.

Cheers to all.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I also think that you have to remember that the clearing they engaged in wasn't confined to fairways or playing corridors, they cleared well beyond those points, resulting in subsequent massive plantings within the next few decades, so it's an error to equate tree lines in 1912-13 with today's tree lines.

If the area cleared was well beyond today's tree line, that would alter the perceived location of the 3rd tee, 2nd green and 4th fairway, since it appears that some are placing the 3rd tee right next to the tree line, as it is today, and not necessarily as it was in 1912-13

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

In off line emails, which hopefully will diminish in number, you and Mike advocated about the visibility from the ridge forming the northern border of the 6th fairway, down to the railroad tracks.  Your point was that if you could see from the ridge to the tracks, you could see from the tracks to the ridge.

One of my counter points was that there was no neon sign, no point of demarcation along the tracks that would tell a rider where PV began and the other property ended.

Look at the photo below.
From the tracks, on the land west of PV (to the right) tell me what someone riding in an eastbound train could see.
Tell us, what properties of the land would be revealed.
Mike insists that Crump could see hills and valleys.
Tell us, based upon this photo, if you agree with that, or if you concede that the passenger could see virtually nothing.
Remember, the passenger was riding on an eastbound train doing 60+mph, not knowing where the land at PV began and ended.
Please be specific in terms of the terrain and features of the land.

Could you see the ridge to the right of the 3rd tee ?
Or, was that view totally obscured by the land form, dense forestation and "jungle like" undergrowth ?

Thanks

[Tom MacWood]

I'm working on it, but I've been busy with maps. 

When are you going to post the Giles and Wind and Brown contributions?  And, the first mention of the hunting story?

Bryan
Why the hesitation to address the numerous hunting stories?

You've also ignored the numerous problems with the train story:

1. Crump was not playing golf in 1910.
2. Tilly was playing little or no golf in 1910 because of his involvement at Shawnee.
3. Crump considered two other sites prior to settling on the current site in 1912.
4. Crump's 1912 letter stating he just found the site.
5. The majority claim the site was found hunting.  

Please address these issues....that is if you have any interest in getting at the truth. If you are just interested in an exercise of mental masturbation, please let us know. I've asked you these questions before...should we read your unwillingness to address as an acknowledgement in mental masturbation?

Brown? I told where you can find the quotes. And if you cannot find them on the other threads the Giles article appeared in American Golfer, and Wind quotes in a 1950 Holiday magazine article and his book the Story of American Golf. The thing is you have had knowledge of those quotes plus all the problems with the Tilly train story for months yet you've had no interest in following up on either, and you continue to ignore them. You obviously prefer these exercises in mental masturbation to basic historical research. You have no interest in and very limited knowledge of golf architecture history.  No one in their right mind would devote so much time and effort to a clearly bogus story. Like I said on the other thread I think your next thread should be devoted to proving a person can die from a tooth ache.

[DMoriarty]

Brauer greatly exaggerates the assumed accuracy of 1913 survey by confusing the increments of measure with the overall accuracy of the resultant map.  Measures with LIDAR technology are also done in increments of .01 feet, and no doubt they could even use smaller increments, but that wouldn't change the margin of error.  Same goes for 1913 surveys or any old surveys.   It is a common error to mistake an apparent precision in the increments of measure with the overall accuracy of final results.  

Brauer also minimizes the capabilities for accuracy of the LIDAR technology.  The USGS has a general statement of accuracy of +/- one meter, but the "2011 technology" is capable of much a  higher level of accuracy than that.  (For example, for their highest resolution option, one provider certifies vertical accuracy within 18.5 centimeters and a 95% confidence interval.)    There is no use getting into the centimeters of the confidence interval, because the technology is more than accurate enough to use as one of the many benchmarks which conflict with the 1913 survey.  

And that is really all that is at issue here.  FROM THE BEGINNING, my point was that the absolute elevations on the 1913 survey were off.   As I have said from the beginning surveys in 1913 were beholden to whatever benchmark point they had available, and they were saddled with whatever absolute error they inherited from that benchmark.  This is a far cry from the situation today, and the echnology available to today to calibrate the equipment used to gather the the data today.

Both Brauer and Bryan have come around to see it my way on this, to varying degrees, but in Brauer's case this was only after pages of unreasonable proclamations of 99% certainty and multiple claims that I was full of bullshit and didn't know what I was talking about.  Yet some wonder why I am so dismissive of his participation here on such issues?

And even when he comes clean about his errors he cannot resist passive aggressive shots and innuendo.  . . .

David,    I was sure I saw a section line ending in a low point, but on going back I don't see it now, so I was wrong on that one, or I saw it somewhere else or its been removed.

Or he saw it somewhere and it has been removed?? As if I went back and deleted or altered my posts in response to his ridiculous accusation that I was fudging my presentation of the facts?   What utter crap!  I don't screw with the data like his pals, and I very much resent his implication that I may have in this case.  Especially when it is Brauer who screwed up and made yet another bogus accusation that he could not back up with facts.   Yet instead of just completely coming clean with his error, he cannot resist taking yet another passive aggressive shot at me to cover his tracks.

If Brauer "saw it somewhere" it was likely in some fanciful fictional creation in his own mind or perhaps in that perpetual email circle jerk that he and his pals keep going offline, where they are free to misrepresent whatever they want without fear of their bogus claims ever being subjected to critical scrutiny.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David and Tom,

OK.

But, per my email to you and others, as of today, let's forget about the past and all of the transgressions from all parties and focus on the future, the facts, reason and reasonability.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Getting a little out of sorts that someone would question the great golf historian are you?

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

Those group emails go straight to my trash.  

Anyway my post wasn't addressing anything in the past. It was addressing Jeff Brauer's recent posts, including his post today.

I very much resent his claim that I posted a misleading cross section by intentionally leaving off the key data, and I resent even more that he is now claiming that maybe I went back and deleted that post to cover my tracks.  I won't speak to the past behaviors of others, but I don't play games like that and I never have.  And when he repeatedly accuses me of such things with NO FACTUAL BASIS WHATSOEVER, well then it is unreasonable to expect me not to address his false claims.  

Along those lines, I understand why you might think it beneficial to forget the past, but I'd much prefer it if we all tried to learn for our past mistakes.  As it is we have the same people doing the same things over and over again and never learning a damn thing from their mistakes, and it is a bit much to expect forgiveness and forgetfulness every time.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I didn't misrepresent anything about LIDAR, which I know can be accurate.  I simply commented on the accuracy of the USGS LIDAR maps Bryan was using and why that produced less detailed results.  Nor is it explained how I am confusing accuracy of data collection and accuracy of maps or what sources contradict me to say that "sketching" was a large part of the data collection process in old line surveying.  (It is of course used to transfer that data, and represent rock walls, swamps, etc. on paper in those days)  In my view, these are examples of subtley shifting the argument, in this case slamming me in the process.   I resent that as much as he resents anything I have said over the years since I don't try to misrepresent anything. 

So if David doesn't care for my numerical estimate of my experience with surveyors accuracy, so be it.  I went back and reviewed everything I said, and have no problems with any of it, other than David gets a chance to use it to slam me and waste everyone's time by being belicose.   And, the funny thing is, as usual, we aren't really disagreeing on the fantastic capabilities of LIDAR, or the fact that the 1913 Crump map cannot be used for long distance cross sections because it doesn't have distant dataand slightly redirecting the arguments.  For that matter, I really didn't mean to imply that the USGS maps weren't suitable for a hobbyist to make a cross section to test a theory of sight lines.

Others can decide whether the bully on the playground is more right than I or whether any of this is worth it.    I still agree more with Bryan's assessment that if you cut the cross section based on the apparent centerline of the photo in question, its likely you would see trees or the tops of ridges in the background and you do.  But, I respect David and Patrick's right to have doubts about this or that.

I now simply ask, what does all this prove regarding the development or deeds of Pine Valley?  I suspect it's all in support of Patrick's notion of the train story being false.  I don't happen to think this diversion sheds much light on it either way, although I still stick by the notion that if we can see the tracks from No. 6, it was sure possible to see No. 6 from the tracks.  Patrick seems stuck on the notion that the trees today or the last 20 years are indicators of what Tillie or Crump might have seen. 

This photo is more contemporaneous, and the far right does show how well you can see through uncleared areas of what would be the future pond on 5.  I don't maintain that Crump needed to see micro contours, just the broad contours and sandy soil, perhaps through clearing lines of paths, or mined areas.

For that matter, being a visual learner, Patrick, I have to ask this:  When making your proclamations based on words, have you even looked at this photo and see what others see, that it is generally lined up down the clearing of the 4th fw rather than 90 degrees to it as would be expected from the front of 6 tee?  Would you see the road near 18 if shooting a photo nearly parallel to it?

That is why I say the photo couldn't be where you say it is, and I am not sure I have seen you give a clear answer based on what you see and interpret, rather than using words alone.  It would seem that to really get at the answer, you would look at the totality of evidence, not just pick words over pictures, or pictures over words, no?

[DMoriarty]

This is rich.   Brauer falsely accuses me of intentionally posting misleading cross-sections by leaving off key data.  So I call him out on this, and provided the complete data set proving he was out of line.   Instead of  coming clean and fully admitting his error, he followed up his first false accusation by falsely implying that I went back and doctored the record to cover my tracks!   And yet I am the bully and troublemaker for calling him out for his false accusations?  Fascinating.

This thread loosely resembled a discussion for around five pages or more; a seemingly picayune discussion to most, but a discussion nonetheless.  Things went awry when Brauer showed up with his pseudo-expert, "99 percent" pronouncements about matters he could not possibly have known with any degree of certainty.  I called him on these pronouncements and rightfully so, and he was wrong on every count and he accomplished little but muddying the waters.  So now he tries to distance himself from his own claims and tries to make this about me picking on him.    But while Jeff Brauer deserves nothing but my contempt, my posts here are not about him personally or even his past abhorrent behavior.  Rather they are squarely aimed at his multiple claims and proclamations on this thread which were and are unsupported and unsupportable by any reasonable reading of the factual record.  

This is what happens in a discussion.  When people put forth unreasonable and unsupportable claims, they get called out on those claims.  If Jeff Brauer is looking for a place where he can regale readers with tales from the field and have his pronouncements and proclamations go unchallenged and unquestioned, he came to the wrong thread.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

That's fine.  We have all made mistakes and you really cannot be big enough to admit when you are wrong or even be gracious when you are right. 

Here's the thing I agree most with - I should just have the sense to avoid any thread you have anything to do with, since I am crazy to think its going to lead to anything but bad things given your bullying "might makes right" ersonality.  Its been that way for many years, and it won't change.  So, yes, I am freaking crazy!

It can be fun discussing these things until, well, its not fun anymore.  Its not fun anymore for most, since all of the main combattants are really too full of ourselves.  And, while I hate to think that I am the problem, or Mike Cirba, TePaul, etc. and that the world view of architecture and history is better told with you dominating the discussion, I guess that is what it comes to.

Have a nice day.

[DMoriarty]

It is not "might makes right."   In these discussions sound reasoning and factual support make right.   Brauer has never quite understood this.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Again, and with all due respect, I call BS.  While you are an expert arguer, I gave examples of directly above of where you blasted me with some gobbelygook non statements that I was confused about this or that.

Let's face facts, our personal problems go all the way back to your very certain and public proclamations about who designed Merion based on some belief in the power of triangles and that there was more contact between CBM and Merion than was documented.  Now that you have browbeat those documents out of others, do you have any more proof of your claims that CBM was there and did more than than the club claimed?  I doubt it, but your entire argument there simply didn't hold up to the standards you set for the conduct, research and opinions of others, at least IMHO. 

And, we have problems because I or anyone else repeatedly makes logical and factual rebuttals to your points, you go ballistic with deflections, insults and the like.  I like to think that is what most followers of this web site understand, that I have stood up to you and defeated your arguments on many occaisions.  You can say you make sound reasoning and factual arguments, and you may actually believe it.  But, you saying it doesn't make you right and the rest of us stupid.

I respect your intelligence but obviously you have some need to take this far more seriously than others.  But many find your behavior uncivil, and frankly I think Ran does a very poor job of policing these discussions when a few passionate participants go overboard (myself included)

So, to quote a former Masters runner up, I am a mucho stupido for participating on these threads.  I just feel sorry for any mistakes I made or any degradation of this website I contributed to.   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Seriously, if anyone can come up with some plan (nice try Patrick, but David simply isn't buying in!) for us all to disengage in these pointless arguments, I am all for it.

[Kyle Harris]

Seriously, if anyone can come up with some plan (nice try Patrick, but David simply isn't buying in!) for us all to disengage in these pointless arguments, I am all for it.

That is easy.

Make this the last post on the thread.

[DMoriarty]

Brauer provides a terrific example of what is wrong with these discussions in his post immediately above.  

This his apparently his idea of what counts for factual rebuttal or intelligent discussion -- misrepresenting the Merion discussion as well as this discussion, and making incoherent claims about how he gave "examples directly above where" I "blasted [him] with gobblegook non statements that [he] was confused with this or that."

There is only one side name-calling here.  There is only one side making ridiculous statements like the one above.    My posts have all addressed Brauer's claims.    My position has been consistent from the beginning, and the facts as I know them support my claims.  While I have been accused of misrepresenting key facts and deleting key posts, I have done nothing of the sort.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Yes, "the facts as I know them" has always been one of your lawerly like claims.  It doesn't mean they are facts.  You are actually quite intelligent and very clever at making statements that support your positions and yet make sure you are not claiming truth, etc.  A recent example is you defending Pat by saying that he is right in not ignoring the caption of the photo, while off on a wild goose chase to say it wasn't taken anywhere near where Pat said it was. 

And nothing in your post is factual, just another proclamation that you are right.  Reading it casually, it sure sounds like you are right, or at least certain that you are right.  And, if you are suggesting you have never called me names, or insulted me here, you are not being factual.  period.

I am perfectly willing to let this be my last post on the matter.  I know from years that David, has ave more willpower and desire to get the last word in, so why fight it.  Sorry I got in here, got under David's skin (truly wasn't my intention in sharing information on surveying from years of experience) and gummed up Bryan's thread.

[DMoriarty]

I use phrases like "facts as I know them" because I am not so arrogant to think I have all the relevant facts. Most of what I have been doing in this thread in the last is to get someone -anyone- to provide me facts that will help me understand how hills could possibly be visible behind the third tee.   No one has even come close to offering such facts, but maybe some day they will.   

I also use phrases like "facts as I know them" because don't believe in making claims beyond my scope of knowledge.  If Brauer would hold himself to the same rigors we wouldn't be getting into these issues. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Specifically regarding your last point, it has occurred to me that perhaps the topos posted have been truncated too close to the PV site?  Has anyone posted the entire NJ or USGS map going further out that might tell us if the hills in the distant are further than the cross sections either you or Bryan have developed?  If they have, I haven't seen them.